I don't know what it's so hard for those Gaffers to understand the nuance in "It's not a good thing to walk around punching people in the face for having different views than you". There is a time for violence, but GAF people get themselves lathered up over the idea of literally just going out finding people that look like they might be Nazis and beating them up, hopefully on film so they can show everyone and get kudos for it. That's not how a normal society works. All of the sudden it's the mods vs the rockers and chaos breaks out and people in the middle get hurt.
Once the Nazis are gone, what about the next group with terrible view that are slightly less bad but still terrible? And then the ones after that? And after that? And eventually the good guys became the bad guys beating up people in the streets.
It's like these nerds ain't ever heard of The Dark Knight Trilogy
There is a reason we have a law. You dont go around punching other people in the face. GAF really cant understand this? Not surprised though considering all the things they wanted to do with PDP.
GAF has gotten to the point IMO, like many borderline radicalized communities, where there are a set of underlying assumptions, many that are contradictory depending on the topic(the criminal justice system for instance, and whether retribution is a suitable deterrent - not for sheriff Joe, but definitely for nazis - or rehabilitation is the goal) that because of that radicalization and demonization of out-groupers, those assumptions are never allowed to be challenged or disputed. Nuance is all but dead at this point. So is the process of empathy for non-tribe members.
The unchallenged thread running through that topic is that the criminal justice system is so broken, so inadequate, that the only possible solution to this Nazi on the train - who it is also assumed was imminently going to escalate beyond just picking fights - could only be pacified by anti-fascists willing to break the law as well. Because the police would of at best stood apathetic, or worse protected and enabled this idiot.
Neither of those assumptions are ever qualified and to try and engage and challenge them is to get piled on.
Is there a threshold in a society where breaking the law for the greater good is morally justified? Absolutely. Is that the case in this instance? Not a whole lot of strong arguments for it right now. But to point that out is apparently a mortal sin.